Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Heinrich (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Heinrich[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice how this article was deleted before on the very same grounds, being now qualified for WP:CSD#G4. --Damiens.rf 02:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only was Stephanie Playboy's 50th anniversary playmate [1] and has plenty of coverage to meet WP:NOTABILITY. BelloWello (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2001. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. I don't believe the article is established as sufficiently identical to the version deleted 7 years ago to justify a G4, but it is very interesting to see that there had been a consensus that long ago that Playmates weren't notable for that status alone. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of news coverage per Bellowello. No playmatehood exception to GNG. If the newspapers are covering her for her playmatehood, then that's her notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bellowello didn't show any coverage about her. He just stated it exists. Restating it here is supposed to make it sound more reliable? Why not just post (here or in the article) examples of such non-trivial coverage? --Damiens.rf 15:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, and I verified the coverage existed by reviewing the hits through that Google news link. Other editors can go and do the same. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just like in other playmate Afds, you prefer to keep the mystery than to backup your own assertions. You have been given the chance but you thrown it away. Again. --Damiens.rf 20:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Naw. It's not about wanting to be mysterious. It's about the fact that I am lazy to copy and paste my reviewing workflow since you've afd'd 100 articles, and I'm going through each afd to review the coverage that does exist. The floor of WP:BASIC does state that (even) if a given source isn't enough coverage, multiple sources may add up to demonstrate notability. I've repeated that point over and over where it applies. Haven't you noticed that I'm not challenging you on every single afd you posted? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:BASIC explicitly excludes trivial coverage. Being trivially mentioned in a thousand articles would not make you notable. That's right there on WP:BASIC but somehow you can only read what fits your desire to have a directory of playmates here. --Damiens.rf 20:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No BASIC does not explicitly exclude/disqualify anything. It acknowledges that added up trivia may not add up to notability. Note 6 clarifies the depth of coverage issue. If all of the existing coverage was just a name then of course no bio could be reliably written. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes it disqualifies trivial coverage. We disagree here. --Damiens.rf 20:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Stephanie Heinrich (2nd nomination)[reply]

Relisting notice. The assertion of sources has not been supported by actual citations. Please can we look at the claimed sources to reach a conclusion of whether they meet GNG? Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no significant coverage. The majority of the Google News hits (about three times as many as for this Playmate, by my rough count) refer to a college athlete. Of what's left, almost all of them mention her in passing, on the order of "also on hand at the boat show/casino promotion/autograph signing were Playboy Playmates A. B, and C." There is the standard hometown paper "Local Girl Poses for Playboy" story, which doesn't make a significant contribution to notability, and a one-line mention in a short piece on a country singer she briefly dated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep This nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [2]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems plenty notable to me. And I agree automated tools should not be for mass deletions. That's an unfair burden shift to AfD editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep procedurally and substantively.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.